Comments on: Maggie Gallagher opposes anal sexhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoricFri, 31 Jul 2015 17:14:55 +0000hourly1By: Allurehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120/comment-page-1#comment-88426
Wed, 02 Feb 2011 23:47:13 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30120#comment-88426Ms Gallagher will never have my respect for any number of reasons. However, forcible anal intercourse, as in rape, can most definitely cause severe, even life-threatening injuries, whether the victim is male or female, no matter what member or object does the penetration. Even if one is willing to give it a go, but is tense or fearful, penetration can be extremely painful and result in tearing. There are a number of medical/physical conditions that can make anal intercourse likewise painful and maybe damaging. So, her statements aren’t totally devoid of merit, but are warped and spun for her convenience. Many couples, mixed and same-sex, of course enjoy experimenting with anal intercourse, though recipients of the rhytmic pentration the vagina-anus-vagina-anus (as much fun as that’s supposed to be) can experience some nasty vaginal/urethral infections. (Ouch!) As an RN, I say have fun, but stay educated and watch out for those germs.
]]>By: Throbert McGeehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120/comment-page-1#comment-88255
Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:17:25 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30120#comment-88255@justsearching: This reminds me of a quote I’ve seen attributed to ’70s kook Anita Bryant, that “homosexuals are called fruits because they eat male sperm, which is the fruit of the tree of life.”
]]>By: justsearchinghttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120/comment-page-1#comment-88250
Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:13:11 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30120#comment-88250http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=channel_page&v=x0wcL_mYpxw

Just for kicks, here’s a nutty woman who in the 90’s had a ministry that, among other things, exorcised the throats and genitals and anal cavities of those whose body parts had been possessed after contact with “ungodly semen.” Wonder what she’s up to these days.

Hetero anal sex is not a one way street, so characterizing it as something guys do to gals and gals suffer through is what’s dishonest.

This is true. I should have simply written, without specifying gender, that those who prefer not to take the “bottom” role in anal have less credibility when arguing in favor of anal sex generally, because of the significant risk-disparity for “tops” and “bottoms.”

(Of course, in the heterosexual context, men who like being penetrated by a strap-on can argue that the practice is safe and satisfying for them, but they still don’t have much business arguing that “if it’s good for me, my girlfriend/wife should also let me futtbuck her sometimes.” In this case, sauce for the gander isn’t necessarily sauce for the goose, since only the gander has a prostate.)

However, despite my anatomical unspecificity, the point, which I noticed Thrombert did not engage for a red herring, still stands.

What point was that?

If you mean “pee-holes are dirty too,” that line of attack isn’t going to work very well on me, since I accept that most forms of watersports/golden showers are completely harmless from a health and hygiene standpoint (I exclude the specific practice of peeing up someone’s butt, since by definition that crosses into “anal bareback” territory).

And frankly, I think the gay male community would be much better off from a health standpoint if anal sex were a comparatively rare and relatively taboo “kink,” while golden showers were widely practiced and “vanilla.”

(To be clear, I’m not saying that there are health advantages to the practice of watersports; I’m saying that even if this activity became vastly more commonplace than it is now, there wouldn’t be any detriment to our collective community health. In contrast, a significant drop in the popularity and frequency of anal sex among gay/bi men would mean fewer opportunities for guys to be talked into barebacking — and that would mean fewer instances of HIV transmission. Gay men who conceptualize anal sex as being something at least slightly kinky and not totally vanilla are going to be less easy “marks” for boyfriends and tricks who wheedle them into being unsafe “because it’s more intimate that way.”)

And suffice to say, I have no illusions that Maggie Gallagher would respect us more if the stereotype was that gay men went around peeing all over each other.

But I am arguing that to challenge the conventional gay wisdom about the vanilla-ness of anal sex, and its relative centrality in our erotic lives, is one of the most important grassroots things gay/bi men can do for ourselves to reduce HIV transmission among us.

]]>By: T.J.http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120/comment-page-1#comment-88233
Sun, 30 Jan 2011 05:06:09 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30120#comment-88233Priya: LOL..that’s funny ;)
]]>By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120/comment-page-1#comment-88186
Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:16:32 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30120#comment-88186Don’t worry about it T.J. I once explained to a disbelieving 19 year old girlfriend that she didn’t urinate out her vagina. It took a mirror in the bathroom to convince her.
]]>By: T.J.http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120/comment-page-1#comment-88185
Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:12:10 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30120#comment-88185Ivan and Anna: thank you for making those points. I made the same ones in another thread in which he brought up the same subject.

@Wyzdyx: Forgive me for my lack of specificity. I was actually referring to the vulva, but mistakenly believed it to be one part of the same organ, so I lumped them together. Thank you for pointing that out (I got D in high school biology so it’s amazing I was that close haha). However, despite my anatomical unspecificity, the point, which I noticed Thrombert did not engage for a red herring, still stands.

Hetero anal sex is not a one way street, so characterizing it as something guys do to gals and gals suffer through is what’s dishonest.

Or Throbert McGee is just as clueless about what goes on in straight folks’ bedrooms as Maggie is about the variety of things that two ladies or fellas can get up to.

]]>By: Regan DuCassehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/28/30120/comment-page-1#comment-88171
Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:51:50 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30120#comment-88171In forums like TownHall, or any other conservative site, ANY discussion on gay lives will inevitably lead to rants and lectures and Scripture quoting on gay sex.
The anti gays can’t seem to go without talking about it and what they think gay sex is and how gay people (especially gay men) are having it.

Indeed, THEY will bring up the subject over and over again. And no matter how much you want to stay on point about what equality is, the concern about bullying that leads to children committing suicide or the concerns that such hostility is THAT insidious…they KEEP coming back to the gay sex subject.

The obsession with that, or the threat to children and pedophile angle is such a preoccupation, you wonder if there is any way to have any OTHER kind of conversation about gay people with them.

And yet, they point the finger at gay people as being the ones obsessed with nothing but sex.

A person with a talent for analysis could easily glean that people like Maggie or their typical audience, apparently have excruciatingly boring sex lives. They are so repressed and lacking in creativity, that they have to focus on someone else that’s exotic to them.
Their virtual talking points is the light of day discussion they are comfortable with talking AT gay people about, but in their supposed polite conversations, they are above all that.

If you ever read “Black Like Me” or in my case (as a black woman), I’ve had this experience myself.
John Griffin, the reporter who wrote BLM learned that white men would treat black women with disdain in the light of day, but were preoccupied and curious about the sexual aspects of black women and what they were willing to do that their polite white women wouldn’t.
Some men have said nasty and sexually explicit things to me and objectified me as something beneath them sexually, but are curious about. They’d speak to me in ways they never would either to a white woman…or a man.

The import of that, which is contempt for me, has been hurtful, but men like that or certain people, will get defensive or deny what they are really doing to you.

This contempt is evident in Maggie’s essay, as it is in the comment threads and what prompts them.
The contempt for gay people’s sex lives is similar enough in what white racists thought of black sex lives…it reveals more deeply what blacks and gays have in common all over again.

What isn’t revealed or obvious in public, the opposition to equality will invoke what they think occurs behind closed doors…where proof and evidence are harder to reveal.
But where speculation and conjecture get outrageous free reign.

Gay folk’s privacy isn’t an option. Maggie’s essay allows an open door and window, and expectation of judgment, where she wouldn’t do such a thing, nor would her supporters, to STRAIGHT people.
Straight people’s privacy is sacrosanct, where gay folks aren’t supposed to have any.
Dissemination at it’s crudest and most dismissive level is fair game to speak regarding gay people.

And all the while, these are the same people who are disgusted that gay people don’t keep their sex lives behind those doors.
Well, if the Maggies of the world feel quite free to do it, and she gives her audience permission to do it too, then what choice do the gay folks have in this?

Gay folks still have to argue with straights on whether they choose to be gay or not.

So how does that gay give gay folks any options whatsoever?

Brian Brown just sent out a newsletter on his opinion about the film “The Kids Are Alright” and the accolades the Oscar nom gives it.
He’s never seen the movie (he admits), but he goes on a lengthy tear about how the children in the film need to have a father and that’s why there (he heard) there was a conflict. He goes on to talk about all the ills in society being created by childless fathers and the cause is same sex parenting.

Of course, missing the point of the movie (and it IS just a movie) doesn’t matter to people like him. HIS point is all that has to come across.

It doesn’t matter to him that REAL, not cinematic families like this, don’t have the sorts of conflicts that movies might.

But, I digress.

The speculation, and determination the anti gay have, to claim themselves ONLY truthful reporters on gay sex lives can only divert attention from the true and accurate goals of gay people. The fascination is so intense that anything that gay people point out honestly and forthrightly, is lost in that preoccupation.